01-3034 In Re: the Termination of Parental Rights to Deantye P-B, a Person under the Age of 18 v. Tara P.

Listen to this article

Although defendant refers to a footnote in a prior case [S.D.S. v. Rock Cty. Dept. of Soc. Servs., 152 Wis.2d 345 (Ct. App. 1989] for the proposition that events occurring prior to the CHIPS dispositional order should be excluded, we hold that defendant’s interpretation of footnote 11 is dicta and the statements made in the footnote are wrong because events occurring prior to the CHIPS dispositional order are frequently relevant at a termination proceeding.

“Tara P.’s long history of failing to take advantage of state-offered mechanisms to obtain housing and employment training, considered in conjunction with her current failure to meet the stable housing and employment conditions, is evidence tending to show that Tara P. is unlikely to meet these conditions in the future.

“At the pretrial hearing on Tara P.’s motion in limine to exclude evidence of events occurring before the CHIPS dispositional orders, the circuit court correctly anticipated that evidence of events prior to the dispositional orders would be relevant to questions the jury would need to decide. Tara P. did not renew her objection at trial, either generally or with respect to specific evidence. We have reviewed the record and conclude that any such effort would have been futile in light of the obvious relevance of the evidence.”

Accordingly, we conclude that at the termination proceeding the circuit court properly denied Tara P.’s motion to exclude evidence of events that occurred prior to the CHIPS dispositional orders.

Orders affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

Dist IV, La Crosse County, Passell, J., Lundsten, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Timothy A. Provis, Madison

For Respondent: David L. Lange, La Crosse